Pope John Paul II to become Saint John Paul

[John Dibble]

Disagree.

First of all, how can you prove that the miracles attributed to him that are required for his sainthood were actually miracles or had anything to do with him in any way?

Second, he never remitted at all on the damaging anti-condom policy of the Catholic Church. Even the current Pope has slightly changed his tune on that.

Third, he didn't adequately respond to the priest sex scandals during his tenure. If he had perhaps the current Pope wouldn't have responded so poorly either - you'd think a leader who is supposed to be infallible could have made a better example for his followers.

Finally, it's rather obvious to me that the real reason for this is just because he was popular with even many non-Catholics who are still alive today. It's a PR move, not a serious spiritual consideration, just like with the overrated Mother Teresa. It would be better to wait perhaps a few decades and allow a new generation to look at the issue more objectively.

[John Dibble]

Disagree.

First of all, how can you prove that the miracles attributed to him that are required for his sainthood were actually miracles or had anything to do with him in any way?

First of all, that could be said about any nominee for Sainthood.

Of course it could - that's a significant part of the point. Of course, in some cases, like with Mother Teresa's supposed miracle you can show it wasn't a miracle.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And so they should simply accept a miracle claim? Why?

[John Dibble]

Dibble, for an atheist/agnostic you post more about religious matters than anyone save Jmf.

Religion affects the world I live in, regardless of whether or not I am religious. This is a world where people of faith try to put their beliefs into law, a world where people of religious faith kill one another and themselves in the name of their holy creeds. I would be a fool to ignore it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We criticize people's politics, the actions of other nations we are not part of, and all sorts of other groups we aren't part of or things that don't affect us directly. I don't think you object to any of that, so why exactly should I not criticize the Roman Catholic Church when I see fit to do so? What exactly is it about your religion and your church that deserves special consideration?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, yes, I couldn't possibly understand it if I'm not a member. It couldn't be that I just think it's a load of crap.

Papal infallibility can be summarized thusly - the Pope is infallible except when he isn't, and nobody is quite sure when he is or isn't. That's a very convenient policy, don't you think?

[John Dibble]

Dibble,  1. I apologize for my sarcastic tone. It was late and I was grumpy.

No problem - I took no offense. I deal with far worse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suppose that's one way to characterize it, but I prefer to think of it as advancing a rational skeptic's way of thinking that encompasses all things and not just religion. It's just that for some reason religions seems to be the one place where people are most stubborn in resisting this, so I feel the need to up the ante.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You aren't a douche, and you didn't come off that way. I know that I'm rather blunt and this can come off as me being a jerk to some people. You're defending your beliefs, which is perfectly fine for anyone to do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Having looked at recent church history on matters of PR, it just seems that way to me. As examples:

1. The beatification of Mother Teresa, which I mentioned earlier, was based on what seems to rather obviously be a false miracle. Info here. Mother Teresa was popular (for misguided reasons) so it seems to have been a PR move.
2. The current Pope's responses to the abuse scandals seemed far more concerned with the image of the RCC than seeing that justice was done for the victims.
3. The very slight change over condom policy only came after years of international criticism on the issue. Again, it seems an image thing to me.

John Paul II was an internationally beloved and respected figure, and as I mentioned the people who felt that way are for the most part still alive. I don't doubt the sincerity of those people, but the upper organization of the RCC seems very concerned about image and rushing John Paul II towards sainthood just seems to be a way to distract people from the RCC negative press for the most part.

For the record I've met a number of Catholics and for the most part they are good people. My recently deceased stepfather was a Catholic, and his priest is a very kind person as well. My criticism in this regard is towards the organization, especially the upper echelons, not the bulk of it's followers.

[John Dibble]

Infallibility isn't that hard a concept, Dibble.  The Papacy is infallible when relating official doctrine and dogma out of necessity, because, were it not, the Pope could lead his whole flock into damnation.  It would simply not make sense for half of Christendom to be condemned to Hell for following the word of a misguided Pope, so any official pronouncement of the Pope is infallible.  This does not relate to anything outside his public capacity (having an affair or whatever has nothing to do with him in his capacity as Pope).  This...isn't that complicated a thing.

I never said it was a hard or complicated thing - I understand the concept, but the way in which it's done as I understand it is too convenient.